In the world, of course Dubai, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo, London, Moscow, Kuala Lampor, Sydney, Melbourne, Toronto etc. would be in the rankings. Did I leave any off the list? Love to see other opinions, including beauty ranks. Beautiful & tall are not the same. Vancouver and San Diego, for example, are beautiful skylines but are not all that tall.

Wow, this thread brings me back to 2003, when the majority of my forum experience revolved around me making completely random lists ranking cities on completely random criteria and posting them confidently as if people actually gave a shit what my thoughts were on the subject.

Wow, this thread brings me back to 2003, when the majority of my forum experience revolved around me making completely random lists ranking cities on completely random criteria and posting them confidently as if people actually gave a shit what my thoughts were on the subject.

Oh look what we have here. You must be the fun guy at a party. Apparently you gave a shit by writing this silly post to a thread you don't give a shit about. Go away, please.

L.A. over NYC & Chicago in U.S.--REALLY? NYC is King. LA might be #3 (at best), but Houston & SF & Miami (Miami has huge # of condo towers) are right there with L.A. so I have them tied. In Canada, Calgary should be on the list, right behind Toronto, Vancouver & Montreal. Calgary skyline is very impressive.

Other notable skylines in U.S. just below the top 15: Charlotte, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, Tampa, Kansas City, San Diego (ranks high in beauty but height is restricted to 500'), Portland, Indianapolis, St. Louis, New Orleans.

Method 1: Add the total height of buildings over 100 meters in a city would be one way.

Method 2: I think a better way imho is to give progressively more weight to buildings over certain heights. For example, assign a rank of 1 for buildings between 100-200 meters, a rank of 5 for 200-300 meters, a rank of 10 for 300-400 meters, a rank of 15 for those between 400-500 meters, and a 20 for those over 500 meters. Add numbers of buildings of each rank in the city. Voila!

The second method favors cities with more supertalls, but a city with large numbers of lower buildings under 300 meters (like Miami, for example) could also rank highly.

Cool list guys, however I don't think I saw Austin mentioned and Oklahoma City-for smaller cities there's Des Moines, Omaha and Tulsa. Heck if Sacramento would get its act together it could make the list as well.

L.A. over NYC & Chicago in U.S.--REALLY? NYC is King. LA might be #3 (at best), but Houston & SF & Miami (Miami has huge # of condo towers) are right there with L.A. so I have them tied. In Canada, Calgary should be on the list, right behind Toronto, Vancouver & Montreal. Calgary skyline is very impressive.

Other notable skylines in U.S. just below the top 15: Charlotte, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Columbus, Detroit, Nashville, Tampa, Kansas City, San Diego (ranks high in beauty but height is restricted to 500'), Portland, Indianapolis, St. Louis, New Orleans.

Oh I didn't know I wasn't entitled to an opinion. Sorry!

I judge based solely on the visual beauty regardless of height or quantity. Is that allowed? You like height and quantity. I do too, but not at the expense of overall beauty.

I love LA's skyline for no other reason than it looks really cool. Buildings are distinct and have space between each other, putting each one on display in all their glory. Same thing with London and Montreal.

Calgary, while it has size, looks boring. The city around it is dull too. I'd rather look at Quebec City or Hamilton.

Method 1: Add the total height of buildings over 100 meters in a city would be one way.

Method 2: I think a better way imho is to give progressively more weight to buildings over certain heights. For example, assign a rank of 1 for buildings between 100-200 meters, a rank of 5 for 200-300 meters, a rank of 10 for 300-400 meters, a rank of 15 for those between 400-500 meters, and a 20 for those over 500 meters. Add numbers of buildings of each rank in the city. Voila!

The second method favors cities with more supertalls, but a city with large numbers of lower buildings under 300 meters (like Miami, for example) could also rank highly.

Anybody have a more objective system?

Or we could all just have our own opinion with no basis other than we like it. Sounds a lot more fun than just a copy paste list of the biggest and baddest.